-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Social Media
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
Quite, but that's sort of my point. It's a stupid thing to do or be allowed to do, but does it warrant the media of the entire nation hammering on the father's door asking for an explanation while the Twitterarti label him the worst father of all time, etc.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
I was reading this on the way to work -
Insatiable: Petition to stop Netflix 'fat-shaming' show - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44934692
It feels like a large chunk of people don't understand what fiction is anymore, or have such a inconsistent criteria as to what's ok and what isn't. If you had a Netflix series about a serial killer, murdering in cold blood, people wouldn't blink.
Insatiable: Petition to stop Netflix 'fat-shaming' show - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44934692
It feels like a large chunk of people don't understand what fiction is anymore, or have such a inconsistent criteria as to what's ok and what isn't. If you had a Netflix series about a serial killer, murdering in cold blood, people wouldn't blink.
Benzin
TS Member
All characters of a certain type MUST be played by a person of that type...
See also Scarlett Johansson leaving that project as a Trans person because people didn't want a 'CIS' female playing the role (even though attaching her to the project probably got more widespread interest)... Don't recall an uproar though when they cast Eddie Redmanye in the Danish Girl (trans) or the Theory of Everything (disabled)...
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
Rob
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance
Ha, that would be brilliant. The outraged cyber warrior actually acts as an influence to other children!
It's just as bad as those sad individuals (and media outlets) who decide to trawl through people's Twitter feeds in order to find something offensive that they said many many years ago. Get a life.
Talking about James Gunn I guess?
Yeah bit stupid, you vet a person before employing them and give the OK even when you are aware of the tweets, said person apologises when previously challenged about them, but five years later some internet keyboard warrior digs up said tweets and stirs up a shitstorm for no other reason than he can.
I'm not sure what's more stupid, that, or the fact Marvel took just a few hours to sack him over it, but seem to have no issue with the tweets last week. Silly thing is, the blogger and vocal minority that got offended at the tweets, probably have never watched a Disney movie and never will so Disney sacked Gunn to apese a group that will never spend money with them.
The father of the kid was just plain stupid and should never have allowed his kid to put it's head over the edge of the platform.
Should have he be named and shamed? Yes, but he also has the right to give his side of the story. However I don't feel that his side of the story justify putting his kid in danger.
It seems like nowadays, lazy parents don't seem to take responsibilities for their kids and when things goes horribly wrong, they blame other people or the companies. What sometimes might seem like harmless fun or ignoring rules that are there for a reason, even if they seem OTT, can sometimes have serious consequences (DMP Rapids).
However labelling the dad for being thick, incompetent or moronic is probably justified, but using the Fat word is uncalled for and makes it more personal.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
@RoyJess Does the name and shame culture en-masse not worry you slightly? Surely everyone does things that they shouldn't, but do them in the knowledge that they will probably get away with them and they won't be subjected to vilification by the social media mob.
I'm all for calling out people that have done something immoral or illegal (the output of investigative journalism, for example) but literally changing a normal person's life overnight without trial or jury with a Tweet seems off to me.
Difficult to draw a line, perhaps. I think it's particularly difficult because quite often the internet doesn't care if something is true or not, but the damage that can be inflicted on that person is almost always real.
I'm all for calling out people that have done something immoral or illegal (the output of investigative journalism, for example) but literally changing a normal person's life overnight without trial or jury with a Tweet seems off to me.
Difficult to draw a line, perhaps. I think it's particularly difficult because quite often the internet doesn't care if something is true or not, but the damage that can be inflicted on that person is almost always real.
Even if he is what the NHS class as clinically obese?
I'm kind of with Rick on this, but also agree with you, it seems the only way some people can be shown the error of their ways is to publically shame them on social media, because simply telling them to keep an eye on their kid instead of reading their phone usually gets you told to fuck off, like I was the other day when I politely pointed out to the young mum pushing her second born in the pushchair that her eldest kid was walking down the middle of the road oblivious to the danger and she might like to take hold of him so he doesn't get run over.
But on the flip side, I hate the judge, jury and executioner style of social media where everybody sits on a pedestal up in an ivory tower barking their opinion to anybody that will listen, and there appears to be no desire for due process, we have one photo and the dad has been tried and executed already, I know he did himself no favours in that justification video, and I wouldn't do either (I wouldn't let my kid hang off the platform but had something like that happened tv would have been told to go forth too), the viral nature of the picture has effectively made prosecuting this guy unsubstainable because everybody and his dog has seen the photo and has an opinion. It's not just this either, anything not complying with what the vocal minority consider correct gets instant justice on social media now. This guy may become tomorrow chip wrap, or he could be hounded so much by Internet warriors he does something really stupid, then whose fault is that?
@Rick I think every situation is different. In case naming and shaming of the kid hanging over the edge of the platform is justified, Many people die on the railways each year because they don't see or hear a train coming. If a express train suddenly came through that station without warning while the kid head is still hanging over the edge, then that will be a live changing moment for that dad in more way's than one. The story also highlights the dangers of being near a railway.
Before the internet we had trail by the tabloids and before the tabloids we had pitchforks and torches.
It's not illegal to take a photo of another person in public and post it (except when you have paid to enter a premises like a cinema, theatre or Alton Towers where you have to go by the business rules). It is illegal to share someone else's photo even if you are in the pic. The person that took the pic owns the copyright.
People can post what they like about you, providing it is factual, accurate and not demeaning in any way.
I would never comment on someone being overweight, it's not PC, we don't know why someone is overweight, could be a medical reason, hence why I said that is personal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of wrapping kids up in cotton wool, they need to have some freedom to learn and play. H&S has gone too far now-a-days, but there are a time and safe places for kids to do that, and there are a time and place where parents need to educate children and make them aware of the dangers.
Again, don't get me wrong, I hate it when the tabloids name and shame famous people and ruin their careers because they have had false allegations made against them without concrete evidence (as in a lot of the sex scandals). I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
In the case of the dad with the kid over the edge of the platform, he has basically confirmed that what is reported is accurate, but has shown ignorance in the danger that he was allowing his kids to be in. So there for I have no sympathy for him. I personally would never stick my head over the platform like that and I would certainly not allow my kids to either.
Before the internet we had trail by the tabloids and before the tabloids we had pitchforks and torches.
It's not illegal to take a photo of another person in public and post it (except when you have paid to enter a premises like a cinema, theatre or Alton Towers where you have to go by the business rules). It is illegal to share someone else's photo even if you are in the pic. The person that took the pic owns the copyright.
People can post what they like about you, providing it is factual, accurate and not demeaning in any way.
I would never comment on someone being overweight, it's not PC, we don't know why someone is overweight, could be a medical reason, hence why I said that is personal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of wrapping kids up in cotton wool, they need to have some freedom to learn and play. H&S has gone too far now-a-days, but there are a time and safe places for kids to do that, and there are a time and place where parents need to educate children and make them aware of the dangers.
Again, don't get me wrong, I hate it when the tabloids name and shame famous people and ruin their careers because they have had false allegations made against them without concrete evidence (as in a lot of the sex scandals). I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
In the case of the dad with the kid over the edge of the platform, he has basically confirmed that what is reported is accurate, but has shown ignorance in the danger that he was allowing his kids to be in. So there for I have no sympathy for him. I personally would never stick my head over the platform like that and I would certainly not allow my kids to either.
Yeah, agree on that @RoyJess, btw it can be illegal to take a photo of someone in a public place, if you have already taken a photo of them and they ask you to stop, but you decide to continue, this is harassment in the laws eyes, and something even more sinister if the subject of the photo is a child, but that's OT and nothing to do with this anyway as it appears the guy neither knew to ask the guy to stop taking photos of his child nor how to enforce it.
Unfortunately you don't have the right to tell someone not to take a photo of you in public. Except for in public toilets and changing rooms which would be completely illegal with or without permission.
The rules are different if you are standing on private property and taking the photos.
Yes, you do, how that pans out after is a subject to the exact circumstances, but it is possible to stop someone taking your photograph in public, see here for the guidance issued to photographers on the matter: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
I'll admit this is very contentious and open to interpretation, 99.99% would not know how to proceed or would assume they have no rights, but you do, it may just cost you a bunch to enforce it, but to blanket say "you do not have any right to stop someone taking your photo in public" is not 100% accurate.
A railway station also may not be public property, it is likely to be private property with public access, a very different thing legally, Epsom Downs is private property with public access as an example (many assume it is public property, it's not), same for most National Trust land.